#tex2html_wrap_inline170# Straightorward s-a: the program itself, the programming
language specs, the machine specs.

#tex2html_wrap_inline172# Self-simulation: Any given number of steps,
can't do in general ``Will I ever stop?'', ``Will I
stop in less than #tex2html_wrap_inline174# steps in general---in less than #tex2html_wrap_inline176# steps.

#tex2html_wrap_inline178# Its choices and their inferred consequences
(free will).

#tex2html_wrap_inline180# ``I hope it won't rain tomorrow''. Should a machine hope
and be aware that it hopes? I think it should sometimes.

#tex2html_wrap_inline182# #math32##tex2html_wrap_inline184#, so I'll have to look it
up.

WHY WE NEED CONCEPTS AS OBJECTS

We had
#math33##tex2html_wrap_inline186#, and I'll have to look it
up.

Suppose #math34##tex2html_wrap_inline188#. If we write

#math35##tex2html_wrap_inline190#, then substitution would give
#math36##tex2html_wrap_inline192#, which doesn't make sense.

There are various proposals for getting around this. The most
advocated is some form of modal logic. My proposal is to regard
individual concepts as objects, and represent them by different
symbols, e.g. doubling the first letter.

There's more about why this is a good idea in my ``First order
theories of individual concepts and propositions''

WE ALSO NEED CONTEXTS AS OBJECTS

We write

#math37#
#displaymath62#

to assert #tex2html_wrap_inline194# while in the context #tex2html_wrap_inline196#. Terms also can be written
using contexts. #tex2html_wrap_inline198# is an expression #tex2html_wrap_inline200# in the context #tex2html_wrap_inline202#.

The main application of contexts as objects is to assert relations
between the objects denoted by different expressions in different
contexts. Thus we have

#math38#
#displaymath64#

or, more generally,

#math39#
#displaymath66#

Such relations between expressions in different contexts allows using
a situation calculus theory in which the actor is not explicitly
represented in an outer context in which there is more than one actor.

We also need to express the relation between an external context
in which we refer to the knowledge and awareness of AutoCar1 and
AutoCar1's internal context in which it can use ``I''.

SELF-AWARENESS EXPRESSED IN LOGICAL FORMULAS---1

Pat is aware of his intention to eat dinner at home.

#math40#

#displaymath74#

(1)

#math41##tex2html_wrap_inline204# is a context. #tex2html_wrap_inline206# denotes
the general act of eating dinner, logically different from
eating #tex2html_wrap_inline208#.
#math42##tex2html_wrap_inline210# is what you get when
you apply the modifier ``at home'' to the act of eating dinner.
#tex2html_wrap_inline212# says that I
intend #tex2html_wrap_inline214#. The use of #tex2html_wrap_inline216# is appropriate within the context of a
person's (here Pat's) awareness.

We should extend this to say that Pat will eat dinner at home unless
his intention changes. This can be expressed by formulas like

#math43#

#displaymath80#

(2)

in the notation of [#McC02##1###].

FORMULAS---2

#tex2html_wrap_inline218# AutoCar1 is driving John from Office to Home. AutoCar1 is
aware of this. Autocar1 becomes aware that it is low on hydrogen.
AutoCar1 is permanently aware that it must ask permission to stop
for gas, so it asks for permission. Etc., Etc. These facts are
expressed in a context #tex2html_wrap_inline220#.

#math44#

#displaymath93#

(3)

QUESTIONS

#tex2html_wrap_inline222# Does the lunar explorer require self-awareness? What about
the entries in the recent DARPA contest?